It was inevitable. You cannot cross the Tranny Mafia and expect to remain a justice warrior in good standing. Peez knows that. So buh-bye Ophie, with a twist of the dagger (referring to his friend of a decade-and-a-half as "this person" is cold-blooded, even for Peez).

"trans-IDing males, regardless of HRT, are performing normally as males in their weight class."

Citation needed. In fact, here’s a nice little article packed solid with citations about why you’re wrong: https://sports.vice.com/en_ca/article/v ... ransitions .And can I just add: Fuck gmcard extra hard, in several directions with sharp objects, for the "likely pedophile" bit. Once again, bigots are claiming all gaytrans people are pedophiles, because it helps gin up the moral panic against the people they hate.
But hey, any story at all in service to making sure trans women suffer and trans men keep pretending to be butch lesbians, right?

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
I accept you can’t see the Goldy POV/forest for the trees.

The standard solution to the bakers dilemma is to say they have the right to refuse business and lose it to a more capitalist inclined competitor.

The issue with PayPal / Patreon / GoFundMe is that there isn’t competition, they are working as a form of trust along ideological lines.

This is regressive and not something to support. Even when directed at Goldy.

It's no great hardship to say that you support the free speech or financial non-de-platforming of someone you (largely) agree with.

But if it was someone like Andrew Anglin (of Daily Stormer fame) rather than Goldie would the principle also apply? And would you be just as vocal in supporting it?

nb This example also has a more pragmatic side - as types like AA and 'The Right Stuff' crew - have already been through these issues - and have had to find alternative revenue streams.

I probably wouldn’t white knight. But I also wouldn’t gleefully revel in the situation any more than I’d celebrate the reverse application of doxing. Though if I did succumb, with the sheer satisfaction of a deserved demise, I’d still be aware I was being a bit cuntish (ends and means and all that).

Binged watched 'The Crown' (Netfilx) over the new year and I must say I thoroughly enjoyed it, superb performances from Claire Foy and Matt Smith as Mr.& Mrs. Queen and a special mention to John Lithgow's excellent portrayal of Winston Churchill.

However as a stickler for detail in this period stuff I was disappointed with the last episode (spoiler alert) which centred around the Profumo affair and in particular the arrest and trial of Stephen Ward. At the end of the trial the judge announces an adjournment for sentencing and a gavel slams down for dramatic effect. British judges don't and never have used gavels. Then as Ward lay dead from suicide in his flat the telephone rings unanswered and the scene moves to a thoughtful Queen at Buckingham Palace still with an unanswered telephone ringing but with the singular American ring tone instead of the double ring from a British phone.
It fucking annoys me that such details are missed. Anyway, otherwise an enjoyable series.

"trans-IDing males, regardless of HRT, are performing normally as males in their weight class."

Citation needed. In fact, here’s a nice little article packed solid with citations about why you’re wrong: https://sports.vice.com/en_ca/article/v ... ransitions .And can I just add: Fuck gmcard extra hard, in several directions with sharp objects, for the "likely pedophile" bit. Once again, bigots are claiming all gaytrans people are pedophiles, because it helps gin up the moral panic against the people they hate.
But hey, any story at all in service to making sure trans women suffer and trans men keep pretending to be butch lesbians, right?

Caine never died and Wowbagger never left. Here's to 10 more years of hackneyed FtB phrases :twatson:

Nb the “Trump infamously ..” bit was an editorial injection by HuffPo attempting to make Nancy less crazy than she is.

So they mitigated the crazy by injecting a lie then.

No. It was editorial injection of inaccurate comparisons (private convos, some occurring pre-seeking office) in an attempt to throw smoke over Pelosi’s claim.

A like for like comparison would be if Trump, an an elected official, had said of Clinton “lock the motherfucker up”. Preferably with an appropriate snarl.

The pussy grabbing bit is a lie clung to with a death grip by the one-eyed.

WTF are you talking about? Are you really denying he said it?

Did he say the words "grab them by the pussy"? Yes he did. The question is what the surrounding words were and the context. Did he say that he likes to grab women by the pussy or that he ever has done so? No he did not.

It was inevitable. You cannot cross the Tranny Mafia and expect to remain a justice warrior in good standing. Peez knows that. So buh-bye Ophie, with a twist of the dagger (referring to his friend of a decade-and-a-half as "this person" is cold-blooded, even for Peez).

I rather despise the “oh so you identify as an attack helicopter” criticism, since birdness or helicopterness aren’t in the range of human behavior, but the “bird” argument doesn’t hold up either. There are people who find social gratification in identifying as an animal — look up furries sometime — and yeah, they face mockery for it, and lacking those desires is a privilege.

Non-furry privilege is the next frontier of Social Justice, according to PeeZee.

Mookie wrote: ↑
Am I the only one old enough to remember when PZ wrote intelligently? That even if you disagreed you could appreciate the way he stated his case?

Now he writes boiler-plate like a virtue-signaling "ethical (meat-eating) vegetarian" middle schooler. It was as if he went supernova and, along with his skill, the bulk of his entourage was blown away, leaving only a core of the most pathetic, wretched, uber-intersectionalist, anti-semitic followers, for whom he now has to pander. White cis men are the "worst people in the world." Atheist women of color are goddesses. Huge muscular men identifying as women and dominating girls' sports is just fine. Any slight deviation from dogma and you are dubbed a racist, TERF, Nazi.

What a repulsive creature he has become, without even the saving grace of having something interesting to say.

I don't know about you, but I don't actually believe that he believes half of what he writes. He is writing, I suspect, solely for the transient rush of being validated.

And all of can be traced to that fateful moment when he had a Sophie's choice between his dream girl RW and his man-crush Dawkins, and he let his smaller brain make the choice. It might have been worth it if he got the girl, but you have to believe she views him as nothing more than a cuckold.

It's not just Peez.

The Progressive left has become increasingly more and more ideologically and tribally driven over the last decade or so. Or I guess more so, as the American left has shifted up from Liberalism to Progressivism, the quality of their arguments has gone down significantly. It's at a "The rich are bad, hur hur" level right now, to be honest. There are actually GOOD arguments to be made for left-leaning policy (I'm not going to say they are slam dunks in every situation, but yes, I think some of them do apply right now, and we're probably moving towards, and not away the need for left-leaning policy) but people are too fucking myopic to actually make them. They're too stuck in identitarian, conflict theory based thinking. It's all us vs. them, good guys vs. bad guys. You don't NEED to know any more than that. It's simple, raw power.

Real talk: Revolutionary language (I.E language supportive of a politics based around revolution) should be seen as an incitement to violence and treated as such as part of social media ToS. Now, I don't know what you want to do about it at that point. Personally, I support social media sites being common carriers, and if it's not proven to be against the law you need it up. But people want these sites to be "responsible". If that's the case, I think a ban might be warranted.

Now my head hurts, being no longer accustomed to reading highly-purified rubbish as those comments. I swear they are getting more demented by their need to prove their purity is the purest purity of all pure things.

shoutinghorse wrote: ↑
Binged watched 'The Crown' (Netfilx) over the new year and I must say I thoroughly enjoyed it, superb performances from Claire Foy and Matt Smith as Mr.& Mrs. Queen and a special mention to John Lithgow's excellent portrayal of Winston Churchill.

However as a stickler for detail in this period stuff I was disappointed with the last episode (spoiler alert) which centred around the Profumo affair and in particular the arrest and trial of Stephen Ward. At the end of the trial the judge announces an adjournment for sentencing and a gavel slams down for dramatic effect. British judges don't and never have used gavels. Then as Ward lay dead from suicide in his flat the telephone rings unanswered and the scene moves to a thoughtful Queen at Buckingham Palace still with an unanswered telephone ringing but with the singular American ring tone instead of the double ring from a British phone.
It fucking annoys me that such details are missed. Anyway, otherwise an enjoyable series.

The Crown is indeed a Good Thing, and made better if you can bring yourself, for entertainment purposes only, to watch even one episode of The Royals. A nightmare world in which everyone is a vapid, shallow social media drone. With respect to gavels, people have been complaining for years that the Beeb Beeb Ceeb has shown them in use. It's probably necessary if one has hopes of selling a series to the USA, where it may be true that everyone is convinced it's not a real court unless a lot of banging goes on. I suspect our memories of ring tones are being gradually eroded by the fact that phones can now have many kinds, and, anyway, who has a landline anymore? I still get a frisson of nostalgic pleasure to call the UK and listen to that lovely double purr the caller hears as the phone rings unanswered. Takes me back to the day the GPO man came and installed a phone. Just one, and in the front hall on a special stand, where it was too cold in the winter to want to talk for long.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
The term is “came up trumps”. Maybe it sticks in your craw?

I don’t have an answer, but it’s intriguing watching the liberties that once operated in a culturally self regulated bubble swirl destructively about. ‘Muh constitution’ is an effective duck - until it’s not. Patriot Act.

Speaking of destructive narratives, this is an effective put down of one such line together with a nice swipe at FBI “hate crime” statistics which are beloved of some here abouts

Good news! That "unknown bearded white male in his 40's driving a red pickup truck" who pulled up along side a car and fired multiple bullets into it, killing a 7 year old black girl ... turns out to have been a 20 year old unbearded black male (driving a black sedan).

I rather despise the “oh so you identify as an attack helicopter” criticism, since birdness or helicopterness aren’t in the range of human behavior, but the “bird” argument doesn’t hold up either. There are people who find social gratification in identifying as an animal — look up furries sometime — and yeah, they face mockery for it, and lacking those desires is a privilege.

Non-furry privilege is the next frontier of Social Justice, according to PeeZee.

If Peez can deploy the 'in the range of human behavior' argument in support of transgender folks, then he can also deploy it support of transracial folks too, considering that blackness, whiteness, injun-ness (h/t to Caine) etc also fall into the range of human behaviour. But I bet he never will.

I rather despise the “oh so you identify as an attack helicopter” criticism, since birdness or helicopterness aren’t in the range of human behavior, but the “bird” argument doesn’t hold up either. There are people who find social gratification in identifying as an animal — look up furries sometime — and yeah, they face mockery for it, and lacking those desires is a privilege.

Non-furry privilege is the next frontier of Social Justice, according to PeeZee.

If Peez can deploy the 'in the range of human behavior' argument in support of transgender folks, then he can also deploy it support of transracial folks too, considering that blackness, whiteness, injun-ness (h/t to Caine) etc also fall into the range of human behaviour. But I bet he never will.

Yeah, it's interesting that being a human being who feels like an animal is lack of privilege, but trans-racialism is offensive and racist. :think:

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
Yeah, it's interesting that being a human being who feels like an animal is lack of privilege, but trans-racialism is offensive and racist. :think:

I've heard that the reason why white people shouldn't be allowed to identify as black people is because they'll never truly understand the depths of oppression which comes from being black. Which is kind of idiotic, but okay. In any case, plenty of feminist women use the same tack: that a man shouldn't be allowed to identify as a woman because he'll never truly appreciate the depths of oppression wimminfolk have suffered at the hands of the patriarchy. Therefore, if you think otherwise, then you must not believe in the oppressive instruments wielded by males over females. Which is an inherently antifeminist position.

When it comes down to it, identity politics is a lot of complicated, nebulous, self-contradictory and idiotic shit, and I honestly don't understand why so many people get so worked up over it. Sure, it's a cheap way to score some virtue points on social media without having to actually do anything, which...well, kind of explains it all, really.

Tigzy wrote: ↑
If Peez can deploy the 'in the range of human behavior' argument in support of transgender folks, then he can also deploy it support of transracial folks too, considering that blackness, whiteness, injun-ness (h/t to Caine) etc also fall into the range of human behaviour. But I bet he never will.

He could also use it to explain (or to his mind excuse) conservative or religious behaviour. But I'm not putting any money down on that one either.

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
Yeah, it's interesting that being a human being who feels like an animal is lack of privilege, but trans-racialism is offensive and racist. :think:

I've heard that the reason why white people shouldn't be allowed to identify as black people is because they'll never truly understand the depths of oppression which comes from being black. Which is kind of idiotic, but okay. In any case, plenty of feminist women use the same tack: that a man shouldn't be allowed to identify as a woman because he'll never truly appreciate the depths of oppression wimminfolk have suffered at the hands of the patriarchy. Therefore, if you think otherwise, then you must not believe in the oppressive instruments wielded by males over females. Which is an inherently antifeminist position.

When it comes down to it, identity politics is a lot of complicated, nebulous, self-contradictory and idiotic shit, and I honestly don't understand why so many people get so worked up over it. Sure, it's a cheap way to score some virtue points on social media without having to actually do anything, which...well, kind of explains it all, really.

It's also a way for companies or universities to look good without actually doing much, and for clickbait media to create controversies to get attention and clicks.

It's basically like religion. A bunch of nonsense which makes you look like a moral and praise-worthy person if you practice saying the right things.

It'd be much more productive to ditch identity and simply focus on protecting common rights and working to deal with complex real issues, like healthcare, welfare, criminal justice, crime, etc. which require protecting the rights of everyone, especially of those not rich/powerful enough to protect their rights on their own. But alas, that would include actually thinking, experimenting, being open to being proven wrong, and discussing things with people who disagree with you. Also it wouldn't make you feel morally superior to the rest of the world.

Ultimately all the word-games and "culture wars" are simply a combination of ego-stroking and simple slogans.

Newsflash, fuckwit: trans women do NOT get male privilege of any kind. Yours is the nonintersectional analysis which assumes a single universal experience of girlhood and womanhood, which is an incredible act of privilege.

You are a bigot.

If for instance Kaitlyn Jenner was always a woman, xe must have never had white male privilege, even though he lived most of his life as a man and everyone thought he was one. If gender is a social construct then why isn't privilege?
Intersectionality is complicated.

Faith Goldy's New Merchandise Sales To Help Her Raise Money Are So Low They're Giving Us Second Hand Embarrassment

Alas, not only is Faith selling very little merch, but she apparently used the images on them without proper permission. It looks like she may have trouble raising the $43k to pay for her failed court case. :cry:

Nb the “Trump infamously ..” bit was an editorial injection by HuffPo attempting to make Nancy less crazy than she is.

So they mitigated the crazy by injecting a lie then.

No. It was editorial injection of inaccurate comparisons (private convos, some occurring pre-seeking office) in an attempt to throw smoke over Pelosi’s claim.

A like for like comparison would be if Trump, an an elected official, had said of Clinton “lock the motherfucker up”. Preferably with an appropriate snarl.

The pussy grabbing bit is a lie clung to with a death grip by the one-eyed.

WTF are you talking about? Are you really denying he said it?

Did he say the words "grab them by the pussy"? Yes he did. The question is what the surrounding words were and the context. Did he say that he likes to grab women by the pussy or that he ever has done so? No he did not.

Well, jeepers, mister, this really belongs in the Trump thread, but here's his words in context-

Unknown: "She used to be great, she's still very beautiful."

Trump: "I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I'll admit it. I did try and fuck her, she was married."

Unknown: "That's huge news there."

Trump: "No, no, Nancy. No this was [inaudible] and I moved on her very heavily in fact I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said I'll show you where they have some nice furniture. I moved on her like a bitch. I couldn't get there and she was married. Then all-of-a-sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look."

Bush: "Your girl's hot as shit. In the purple."

Multiple voices: "Whoah. Yes. Whoah."

Bush: "Yes. The Donald has scored. Whoah my man."

Trump: "Look at you. You are a pussy."

Bush: "You gotta get the thumbs up."

Trump: "Maybe it's a different one."

Bush: "It better not be the publicist. No, it's, it's her."

Trump: "Yeah that's her with the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful... I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything."

shoutinghorse wrote: ↑
Binged watched 'The Crown' (Netfilx) over the new year and I must say I thoroughly enjoyed it, superb performances from Claire Foy and Matt Smith as Mr.& Mrs. Queen and a special mention to John Lithgow's excellent portrayal of Winston Churchill.

Newsflash, fuckwit: trans women do NOT get male privilege of any kind. Yours is the nonintersectional analysis which assumes a single universal experience of girlhood and womanhood, which is an incredible act of privilege.

You are a bigot.

If for instance Kaitlyn Jenner was always a woman, xe must have never had white male privilege, even though he lived most of his life as a man and everyone thought he was one. If gender is a social construct then why isn't privilege?
Intersectionality is complicated.

Muscato doesn't get male privilege even while looking as a bearded bald man.

So you would be ok with a restaurant turning away blacks but not whites? Or vice versa? Or is there, perchance, a "spectrum" of attributes that we can discriminate against? Race is verboten but sexual predilections is fair game? I can see that some bakers might be a bit uncomfortable decorating cakes with pornographic images, but don't recollect that that was the basis of the related court case.

I wouldn't be OK with the denial of service on an equal basis. If they demand you change your product or demand services that aren't in your business plan, that is a different matter.

Don't think you really answered my question. Do you agree that restaurants can not serve people who are black, yes or no? ;-)

And while I'll concede that a demand to "change a [business'] product or demand services that aren't in [a business'] business plan" is beyond the pale - so to speak, I don't see that creating a custom design is likely to be outside such products or plan. Unless of course the designs are fixed and there's a significant cost in creating new ones.

But part of the reason why I think it's a mug's game to be creating innumerable permutations & combinations of adjectives and nouns (*cough "woman", "female" *cough), particularly if one hasn't defined the terms at the outset based on simple and objectively quantifiable criteria (*cough "produces ova" *cough) ... ;-)

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
Yeah, it's interesting that being a human being who feels like an animal is lack of privilege, but trans-racialism is offensive and racist. :think:

I've heard that the reason why white people shouldn't be allowed to identify as black people is because they'll never truly understand the depths of oppression which comes from being black. Which is kind of idiotic, but okay. In any case, plenty of feminist women use the same tack: that a man shouldn't be allowed to identify as a woman because he'll never truly appreciate the depths of oppression wimminfolk have suffered at the hands of the patriarchy. Therefore, if you think otherwise, then you must not believe in the oppressive instruments wielded by males over females. Which is an inherently antifeminist position.

When it comes down to it, identity politics is a lot of complicated, nebulous, self-contradictory and idiotic shit, and I honestly don't understand why so many people get so worked up over it. Sure, it's a cheap way to score some virtue points on social media without having to actually do anything, which...well, kind of explains it all, really.

While I'll readily concede that the whole concept of "identifying" is, largely, incoherent twaddle, I don't think you've been paying attention if you don't understand that "worked up". You might consider "thinking of the children" - so to speak - who are rather badly served, who are basically tricked into thinking that they can actually change their sexes and who then allow their genitalia to be mangled.

AndrewV69 wrote: ↑
Pretty sure I have mentioned this before, so here we go again.

Myself and four brothers have produced 21 children. Current count of grand children is four. Only one has been infected (she caught it at University) with the white man bad, etc. etc. etc. (but meanwhile her boyfriends are and always have been white male Canukistans).

Compare this number, 21 sprogs to any five Canadians selected at random. My guess is that the best you will get a maximum count of ten or 11.

This is going to change the proportions in the population mix, and subsequently the culture, the power structure, economics, politics, *business practises etc. etc. etc. All of these things will change with it.

* One fellow I know was astounded that a guy who was stealing from the store he worked at was rewarded with his own store to manage (family owned chain) and then there was another fellow who boasted that his son tried to cheat him in a business deal. I could go on. But you get the picture.

You or your "tribe" condone or support such "values"?

No doubt there are crooks and thieves in all demographics, but many of them make some effort at least to anathematize or criminalize such behaviour, not reward the perpetrators.

Don't think you really answered my question. Do you agree that restaurants can not serve people who are black, yes or no? ;-)

Technically that isn't a yes or no question. The restaurant can deny service to a black person that isn't wearing shirt or shoes. :P
Legally you can't deny a service to a person because of race. The liberal me says that is a good thing.
In the case of Faith Goldy, the denial of service wasn't done because of her race, but presumably because of her behavior. Just as it is legal to have morals clause in employment contracts, providing a service to someone whose behavior creates damage to the business of the service provider can be withheld. The capitalist me says that is a good thing.

Faith Goldy's New Merchandise Sales To Help Her Raise Money Are So Low They're Giving Us Second Hand Embarrassment

Alas, not only is Faith selling very little merch, but she apparently used the images on them without proper permission. It looks like she may have trouble raising the $43k to pay for her failed court case. :cry:

Faith Goldy's New Merchandise Sales To Help Her Raise Money Are So Low They're Giving Us Second Hand Embarrassment

Alas, not only is Faith selling very little merch, but she apparently used the images on them without proper permission. It looks like she may have trouble raising the $43k to pay for her failed court case. :cry:

Nb the “Trump infamously ..” bit was an editorial injection by HuffPo attempting to make Nancy less crazy than she is.

So they mitigated the crazy by injecting a lie then.

No. It was editorial injection of inaccurate comparisons (private convos, some occurring pre-seeking office) in an attempt to throw smoke over Pelosi’s claim.

A like for like comparison would be if Trump, an an elected official, had said of Clinton “lock the motherfucker up”. Preferably with an appropriate snarl.

The pussy grabbing bit is a lie clung to with a death grip by the one-eyed.

WTF are you talking about? Are you really denying he said it?

Did he say the words "grab them by the pussy"? Yes he did. The question is what the surrounding words were and the context. Did he say that he likes to grab women by the pussy or that he ever has done so? No he did not.

Well, jeepers, mister, this really belongs in the Trump thread, but here's his words in context-

Unknown: "She used to be great, she's still very beautiful."

Trump: "I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I'll admit it. I did try and fuck her, she was married."

Unknown: "That's huge news there."

Trump: "No, no, Nancy. No this was [inaudible] and I moved on her very heavily in fact I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said I'll show you where they have some nice furniture. I moved on her like a bitch. I couldn't get there and she was married. Then all-of-a-sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look."

Bush: "Your girl's hot as shit. In the purple."

Multiple voices: "Whoah. Yes. Whoah."

Bush: "Yes. The Donald has scored. Whoah my man."

Trump: "Look at you. You are a pussy."

Bush: "You gotta get the thumbs up."

Trump: "Maybe it's a different one."

Bush: "It better not be the publicist. No, it's, it's her."

Trump: "Yeah that's her with the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful... I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything."

Nb the “Trump infamously ..” bit was an editorial injection by HuffPo attempting to make Nancy less crazy than she is.

So they mitigated the crazy by injecting a lie then.

No. It was editorial injection of inaccurate comparisons (private convos, some occurring pre-seeking office) in an attempt to throw smoke over Pelosi’s claim.

A like for like comparison would be if Trump, an an elected official, had said of Clinton “lock the motherfucker up”. Preferably with an appropriate snarl.

The pussy grabbing bit is a lie clung to with a death grip by the one-eyed.

WTF are you talking about? Are you really denying he said it?

Did he say the words "grab them by the pussy"? Yes he did. The question is what the surrounding words were and the context. Did he say that he likes to grab women by the pussy or that he ever has done so? No he did not.

Well, jeepers, mister, this really belongs in the Trump thread, but here's his words in context-

Unknown: "She used to be great, she's still very beautiful."

Trump: "I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I'll admit it. I did try and fuck her, she was married."

Unknown: "That's huge news there."

Trump: "No, no, Nancy. No this was [inaudible] and I moved on her very heavily in fact I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said I'll show you where they have some nice furniture. I moved on her like a bitch. I couldn't get there and she was married. Then all-of-a-sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look."

Bush: "Your girl's hot as shit. In the purple."

Multiple voices: "Whoah. Yes. Whoah."

Bush: "Yes. The Donald has scored. Whoah my man."

Trump: "Look at you. You are a pussy."

Bush: "You gotta get the thumbs up."

Trump: "Maybe it's a different one."

Bush: "It better not be the publicist. No, it's, it's her."

Trump: "Yeah that's her with the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful... I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything."

Bush: "Whatever you want."

Trump: "Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

Lovely words from a lovely man.

Why is the transcript cut off there?

Because that was the quote in question.
The BBC transcript doesn't want to link, but here- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 51381.html
Do enjoy the whole thing. The idea that somehow the quote was taken out of context is popular among certain folks, but there really isn't any way to make it look good when you have the whole transcript in front of you. Unless you happen to enjoy whataboutism or substitute expediency for morality.

The Progressive left has become increasingly more and more ideologically and tribally driven over the last decade or so. Or I guess more so, as the American left has shifted up from Liberalism to Progressivism, the quality of their arguments has gone down significantly. It's at a "The rich are bad, hur hur" level right now, to be honest. There are actually GOOD arguments to be made for left-leaning policy (I'm not going to say they are slam dunks in every situation, but yes, I think some of them do apply right now, and we're probably moving towards, and not away the need for left-leaning policy) but people are too fucking myopic to actually make them. They're too stuck in identitarian, conflict theory based thinking. It's all us vs. them, good guys vs. bad guys. You don't NEED to know any more than that. It's simple, raw power.

Yes. This was largely behind my thinking that it would be better to elect right wing governments now, as they aren't too bad at the moment, and being out of power tends to make people work on their arguments. That it hasn't made much difference in the places where (at least nominally) right wing governments have won is worrying. It's what's convinced me that the problem is cultural, and that fixing the culture has to be the priority.

I'm sure you Pitters will be shocked to learn that Talcolm X was one all over social media raising funds, after he jumped (again!) to the wrong conclusion and blamed a "white man" for the murder of that 7-year old girl.

These freaks are just as guilty of what they accuse the "alt-right" of doing. Whenever there is a murder, they jump to some conclusion that fits their agenda, and then go quiet when they are exposed as lying about it.

PS. Hilarious about Ofie and Peez. DIVIDE AND FUCKING CONQUER THE SHIT OUT OF THESE FUCKING BABOONS.

CommanderTuvok wrote: ↑
I'm sure you Pitters will be shocked to learn that Talcolm X was one all over social media raising funds, after he jumped (again!) to the wrong conclusion and blamed a "white man" for the murder of that 7-year old girl.

These freaks are just as guilty of what they accuse the "alt-right" of doing. Whenever there is a murder, they jump to some conclusion that fits their agenda, and then go quiet when they are exposed as lying about it.

PS. Hilarious about Ofie and Peez. DIVIDE AND FUCKING CONQUER THE SHIT OUT OF THESE FUCKING BABOONS.

Shaun King is taking credit for passing on the correct tip to the police, in contrast to his earlier insistence that it was a white racist hate crime. He's also very busy deleting any critical comments on his Twitter and Instagram accounts. :roll: This story will be almost nonexistent by tomorrow. RIP the poor innocent victim.

BarnOwl wrote: ↑
Shaun King is taking credit for passing on the correct tip to the police, in contrast to his earlier insistence that it was a white racist hate crime. He's also very busy deleting any critical comments on his Twitter and Instagram accounts. :roll: This story will be almost nonexistent by tomorrow. RIP the poor innocent victim.

Then there's this sweaty bozo, who has King on his payroll. Just another day of justice warriors looking out for their own, taking care of busine$$.

Ape+Lust, I'd just copied the address to that Cenk tweet, and was ready to paste...... :nin:

So, next time someone like PJW or Cernovich tweet something out in the midst of a bombing, and get it completely wrong, we should congratulate them just for trying to get to the truth, and perhaps for raising the profile of the bombing, so it can eventually be solved properly...

Nb the “Trump infamously ..” bit was an editorial injection by HuffPo attempting to make Nancy less crazy than she is.

So they mitigated the crazy by injecting a lie then.

No. It was editorial injection of inaccurate comparisons (private convos, some occurring pre-seeking office) in an attempt to throw smoke over Pelosi’s claim.

A like for like comparison would be if Trump, an an elected official, had said of Clinton “lock the motherfucker up”. Preferably with an appropriate snarl.

The pussy grabbing bit is a lie clung to with a death grip by the one-eyed.

WTF are you talking about? Are you really denying he said it?

Did he say the words "grab them by the pussy"? Yes he did. The question is what the surrounding words were and the context. Did he say that he likes to grab women by the pussy or that he ever has done so? No he did not.

Well, jeepers, mister, this really belongs in the Trump thread, but here's his words in context-

Unknown: "She used to be great, she's still very beautiful."

Trump: "I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I'll admit it. I did try and fuck her, she was married."

Unknown: "That's huge news there."

Trump: "No, no, Nancy. No this was [inaudible] and I moved on her very heavily in fact I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said I'll show you where they have some nice furniture. I moved on her like a bitch. I couldn't get there and she was married. Then all-of-a-sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look."

Bush: "Your girl's hot as shit. In the purple."

Multiple voices: "Whoah. Yes. Whoah."

Bush: "Yes. The Donald has scored. Whoah my man."

Trump: "Look at you. You are a pussy."

Bush: "You gotta get the thumbs up."

Trump: "Maybe it's a different one."

Bush: "It better not be the publicist. No, it's, it's her."

Trump: "Yeah that's her with the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful... I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything."

Bush: "Whatever you want."

Trump: "Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

Lovely words from a lovely man.

Why is the transcript cut off there?

Because that was the quote in question.
The BBC transcript doesn't want to link, but here- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 51381.html
Do enjoy the whole thing. The idea that somehow the quote was taken out of context is popular among certain folks, but there really isn't any way to make it look good when you have the whole transcript in front of you. Unless you happen to enjoy whataboutism or substitute expediency for morality.

I think it is more effective with the video. He makes a joke that he can't help himself with beautiful women, compulsively kissing them without even waiting and talks about grabbing them by the pussy. When he actually meets the woman he is talking about, he doesn't do any of that. Billy Bush repeatedly tries to make something happen. Trump mentions his wife to her the first time Billy Bush tries this. Later he gives a non-answer to Bush's question about which one of them she should pick.

I took the media descriptions at face value for nearly two years before seeing the tape. I assumed he was straightforwardly describing his view of the world. Seeing the tape made me do a 180. He's telling two stories to amuse Billy Bush. In the first one, he spent money and time on a woman he wanted to impress and got nowhere. It's a self deprecating story. The way he describes himself in the second story is immediately undercut by his actions when he meets the woman he is joking about.

If one wants to claim he is being straightforwardly honest about how he goes around grabbing pussies, why does he not act like that when he actually meets the woman he is joking about even when she makes it clear she is prepared to accept quite a bit of sexual forwardness from Billy Bush?

If one wants to claim he is being straightforwardly honest about how he goes around grabbing pussies, why does he not act like that when he actually meets the woman he is joking about even when she makes it clear she is prepared to accept quite a bit of sexual forwardness from Billy Bush?

<snip>
Do enjoy the whole thing. The idea that somehow the quote was taken out of context is popular among certain folks, but there really isn't any way to make it look good when you have the whole transcript in front of you. Unless you happen to enjoy whataboutism or substitute expediency for morality.

<snip>
This is like the "confession" in Presumed Innocent.

Are you and the Captain trying to see how many times you can repeat the same boiler-plate, adding dozens of "paragraphs" every time, before the system breaks?

Acceptable standards hereabouts, even if not everyone subscribes to them all the time, is to delete extraneous and irrelevant information in the comment being responded to.

If one wants to claim he is being straightforwardly honest about how he goes around grabbing pussies, why does he not act like that when he actually meets the woman he is joking about even when she makes it clear she is prepared to accept quite a bit of sexual forwardness from Billy Bush?

Because he realizes he is on camera?

But Billy Bush doesn't? Trump doesn't even take opportunities that would have been socially acceptable, or at least excusable. He acts more respectfully and professionally once he's out of the bus than I had been led to expect.

Don't think you really answered my question. Do you agree that restaurants can not serve people who are black, yes or no? ;-)

Technically that isn't a yes or no question. The restaurant can deny service to a black person that isn't wearing shirt or shoes. :P

Only if you insist on throwing in some red herrings - like what the person was or was not wearing.

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑
Legally you can't deny a service to a person because of race. The liberal me says that is a good thing.

Good. But the question is why designs on cakes should or should not also be a protected category which would preclude or allow discrimination.

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑In the case of Faith Goldy, the denial of service wasn't done because of her race, but presumably because of her behavior. Just as it is legal to have morals clause in employment contracts, providing a service to someone whose behavior creates damage to the business of the service provider can be withheld. The capitalist me says that is a good thing.

"liberal capitalist" then? ;-) But methinks the context was the baker, not the candlestick maker. And moot how or where the damage is in either case. One might just as easily argue that you, as a restauranter, allowing blacks into your establishment might also "create damage to your business".

<snip>
Do enjoy the whole thing. The idea that somehow the quote was taken out of context is popular among certain folks, but there really isn't any way to make it look good when you have the whole transcript in front of you. Unless you happen to enjoy whataboutism or substitute expediency for morality.

<snip>
This is like the "confession" in Presumed Innocent.

Are you and the Captain trying to see how many times you can repeat the same boiler-plate, adding dozens of "paragraphs" every time, before the system breaks?

Acceptable standards hereabouts, even if not everyone subscribes to them all the time, is to delete extraneous and irrelevant information in the comment being responded to.

When Steersman takes you to task for a wall o' text, you know you've gotten out of hand. :naughty:

Only if you insist on throwing in some red herrings - like what the person was or was not wearing.

Oh and here I thought you were a stickler for clear definitions (hence the :P ).
I suppose that if the law says you can't discriminate against gay people and the cake in question isn't a product that is greatly different than the baker's normal product then they should bake the cake.
I'm still undecided as to whether I should sue McDonalds for discriminating against me for being a sleeperinner and not serving my bacon and egg McMuffin after a certain time.